Friends,
I am reaching out to ask for help on behalf of the Newport Beach Full Time Lifeguards.
The City recently presented a plan that cuts the full time lifeguard staff by +50%: from 17 to 8 positions. This will affect the quality and safety of the lifeguard services in Newport Beach for years to come. The City Manager, Dave Kiff does not seem to share our concern as noted in the Daily Pilot and an ABC7-TV interview:
"I don't think the city's taxpayers should have to fund someone's choices to go swimming in January or December when the waves are rougher, there's more risk…," said Kiff.
As a professional lifeguard, a 20+ year city resident and a parent of 3 children who use the ocean year round, I find his comment abhorrent and misleading. The apparent disregard for life speaks for itself. I believe his comment is misleading in that the City's Taxpayers do not pay for beach safety services. Revenues from the beach users, including beach parking, citations and TOT (bed-tax paid on weekly rentals) are more than sufficient to cover the beach safety service and have been increasing even in the down economy.
Here is just a glimpse into what the proposal entails:
• Junior Lifeguard Supervision Cut by 50%: the proposal has the Junior Lifeguard Captain position eliminated and replaced by a non-Safety person. This will affect the high standards of this self-funded program and could lead to a future reduction in participants to maintain supervision and safety ratios.
• The cuts will affect Peak Season supervision and patrol of the beaches: The proposal calls for only three full time lifeguards daily to staff, manage and supervise 70 seasonal lifeguards.
• Fall through Spring there will only be 3 lifeguards on duty per day: to respond to all emergencies, beach & marine calls and EMS for the 7 miles of oceanfront. Any sick days, vacations, injuries, or training would require overtime backfills costing more money.
As professional Lifeguards, we believe that these cuts are not in the interest of the City, the taxpayers and the visitors to Newport Beach. We see Newport Beach as a world-class destination that should have safe and clean beaches. Our priority is to provide safe beaches and protect lives in this year round destination that we call home...
Mike Halphide
VP Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Association
www.newportbeachsafety.org
mhalphide@gmail.com
nblifeguards@gmail.com
This is horrible, a big mistake, and Dave Kiff's comment is completely wrong.
Yes, if an individual uses common sense they should come to the conclusion that in the winter there are larger waves so it's more dangerous, and that they should re-consider entering the ocean. I also agree with the opinion that it's someone's decsion to enter the ocean and put themselves at risk.
But, the fact is that the average person is unknowledgeable, ignorant, and even stupid about the ocean. And because the city has the duty to protect its citizens, we must provide adequate security and personnel to staff our beaches. Another concern are accidents that are sometimes unavoidable, that can happen to the most experienced people. Lifeguards need adequate staffing to be able to respond to these emergencies.
I don't know how many rescues Newport lifeguards made last summer but I am sure the number is very large.
Also, 3 lifeguard supervisors for 70 seasonal lifeguards is ridiculous. The City is trying to put more responsibility on the shoulders of seasonal lifeguards that have no where near the experience that these year round supervising lifeguards have. Plus, throughout the day, these seasonal guards should be receiving training to improve their lifesaving skills and with only 3 supervisors, that is very unlikely to happen.
As a lifeguard, I've seen many people put themselves in dangerous situations without even realizing it. Another problem is that when people do go to the beach they "check-out." By "checking-out" I'm referring to how people come to the beach to relax and have fun and they become less perceptive and aware of their surroundings as they normally would be.
One great example is when people walk on the beach (they could be talking on their cell-phone) and they stop or set up their towel right in front of a lifeguard truck. I mean, come on, you would never do that in the street but on the beach people aren't expecting it and therefore are oblivious to it.
Most people at the beach don't know how to swim very well or are completely without knowledge about swimming in the ocean. And many will even enter the water drunk. Many people just don't know how to be safe (cutting the Junior Lifeguard Program budget won't help either) and it's unethical to let them put themselves in situations that can be harmful to themselves.
If you disagree with my opinion I'd like to hear why.
Don’t get me wrong, I don't think it's a good idea to reduce the number of lifeguards to only eight. However, one fact lifeguards wont tell you is their salary—I heard a lifeguard chief makes over $120,000 before overtime! With all due respect, I think that’s a little high. If budgeting is the problem, lifeguards should agree to take a lower salary and not get laid off. At such a high salary, I can see why the number of lifeguards is being reduced.
ReplyDeleteWell, my experience is in San Diego but I think there are a lot of similarities.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Chief is usualy appointed my the Mayor. I'm sure everyone appointed by the mayor makes a large amount of money as well as a huge amount of work.
Second, the Chief's reponsibility is not just lifeguarding. The Chief is often down at City Hall dealing with the Public, City Counsel, and working with other lifeguard agencies. He is in charge of the entire Lifeguard budget and coordinating with the Fire Department. This guy is not just sitting in a tower watching people all day.
In San Diego, when there is a large catastrophe (flooding, cliff rescues, tsunami warnings) very often, the Chief and Leuitnenants are responsible for coordinating and organizing the Coast Guard, firefighters, and police department effectively.
If you think cutting the salary of the Chief is necessary, do you also advocate cutting salaries for firefighters and the police as well?
Third, you are talking about 1 individual as opposed to the other permanant lifeguards that make significantly less. When you become a permanant lifeguard, you are making a career out of this profession and should be able to support your family. Cutting salaries is just going to drive experienced people away from this job.
I remember a few years ago I got a salary cut myself, at least indirectly, through the pension plan offered by the City.
Finally, your solution is ridiculous. If all lifeguard services in Newport are paid for by beach users, why should lifeguards have to suffer when there are other governmental agencies that don't have things paid for?
Being a lifeguard, I understand the concern about people's year-long safety at the beach. At the same time, most cities in the US are hurting for money and are looking for ways to cut costs. Most people do not go to the beach in the winter, so it would make sense to cut some of the staff. Not everyone uses the beach and could be considered more of a luxury than a necessity. And if people do not know how to swim or do not know beach safety, they should not be at the beach. I know every time I go to the ocean I need to responsible with my own life and I am out there by myself. So I am not totally against this lifeguard cut in staff.
ReplyDelete